Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[zotz]

By who's account? Not by her's.

I think Vixen is referring to Raffaele Agiro.

 

[Dougm]

Giobbi perceived it as a flirtatious shimmy. Amanda in her book claimed she imagined herself a being the star of some musical.

Thank goodness she didn't also burst into, "The hills are alive, with the sound of muuuusic".

Maybe that would have been better. Maybe if Giobbi enjoys that musical, he might have turned around and pinned the murder on somebody else! Probably depends on how well Amanda sang it, or if she spun around in a way that reminded him of Maria being a nun in the movie.

 

[acbytesla]

I think Vixen is referring to Raffaele Agiro.

Who is he? I've never heard of him. Was he a female prisoner with Amanda during her incarcetation? This is a perfect example of the absurdity of behavior analysis applied by Vixen and others. If Amanda freaks out, that is proof that's she is crazy and her guilt and if she doesn't, she is a sociopath and she's guilty.

Vixen and other guilters would have to be part of my study. Seriously,what causes seemingly intelligent people to toss all logic aside? For the life of me,I don't understand how anyone can believe there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[zotz]

No, you have to look at the whole picture. The detectives good at this rise through the ranks.

This is a good point. The techniques used in this case were learned over many years and resulted in a high rate of conviction. If Amanda and Raffaele had been nobodies with no families or resources they most likely would never have been acquitted and this case would have been remembered as a big success for the police. Who knows how many innocents have been convicted in Italy without anyone caring very much. BTW, this goes double in the US where getting a new trial is much more difficult.

 

[Vixen]

This is a good point. The techniques used in this case were learned over many years and resulted in a high rate of conviction. If Amanda and Raffaele had been nobodies with no families or resources they most likely would never have been acquitted and this case would have been remembered as a big success for the police. Who knows how many innocents have been convicted in Italy without anyone caring very much. BTW, this goes double in the US where getting a new trial is much more difficult.

Are you confirming Raff and Amanda "bought" their way out?

Police are only interested in securing a conviction.

The wider issues of punishment, recidivism, inequality, rehabilitation, etc, is a problem for the politicians.

 

[Ken Dine]

No, I think they planned to arrest Knox some time in the middle of the night. I think they reasoned that if they started on Sollecito at around 10pm, they'd easily be able to "break" him within a couple of hours or so, and therefore they would be in a position to go and snatch a tired, disorientated and scared Knox by 2-3am at the latest.

I probably assumed you meant a morning arrest for Amanda since "fanfare" works better in daylight.


With your clarification, I now feel we're on the same page.

And that plan, with those sorts of timings, would have a couple of distinct advantages for the police/PM. Firstly, it's always easier to go out and arrest someone in the community in the middle of the night (the suspect is likely to be asleep in a known location, is therefore likely to put up far less resistance to entry and arrest, and there are far fewer other people around on the streets etc to complicate things). And secondly, the suspect is likely to be more pliable if interrogated immediately: (s)he has just been woken in the middle of the night and hauled in with force and aggression, so mental resistance should be lowered.

I suspect that their original plan was to start interrogating Amanda around midnight. Afterall, they really didn't need to actually break Raffaele, they just had to convince Amanda that Raffaele no longer supported her alibi, and they could tell Amanda that even if Raffaele never broke.

Actually, all Raffaele ever admitted was that after he fell asleep, then how could he be certain that Amanda didn't sneak out after he fell asleep?

Once Raffaele admitted he couldn't be certain about Amanda's whereabouts once he was asleep, BINGO, that was all they needed!

Actually, they probably didn't even need that much from Raffaele since the police probably could have lied to Amanda. At least here in America police are allowed to lie during interrogations, which I'm personally not comfortable with.

I think the police "knew" that Knox was the cunning brains behind things, and that she was somehow controlling Sollecito to lie for her. I think they probably saw Sollecito as a weak man whom they'd be able to break easily, but I think they saw Knox as a shrewd operator and a seasoned liar. And I wouldn't be at all surprised therefore if the whole plan of action was put together with the explicit aim of maximising the opportunity to "break" Knox, whom the police viewed as the real (and challenging) target.

Agreed.

It could have been, for example, that the police/PM had come to their conclusions about the crime early in the day on the 5th, but that they very deliberately held their plan back until that night in order to be able to haul Knox out of bed in a daze once Sollecito had "buckled".

I agree – I only feel that the police would have hauled Amanda in around midnight, where you claim " 2-3am at the latest". I say 12-1am at the latest, so we're only an hour apart.

I just don't see any need to keep all those cops standing around until 2:00 pm with Amanda's mom arriving the next day, so why waste 2 hours on Raffaele that could be better used to break Amanda when they didn't even need for Raffaele to break?

I actually have a lot of respect for Raffael. He could have avoided a lot of this by making a deal, but he stuck to his guns and endured everything that would follow.

Raffaele did a few dumb things, like carrying his pen-knife to the police station. Being Italian, he probably should have realized that he and Amanda needed a lawyer before that night.

Both Amanda & Raffaele would have been much better off if they had both listened to their worried parents – that may be the moral to this story.

 

[zotz]

Are you confirming Raff and Amanda "bought" their way out?

Police are only interested in securing a conviction.

The wider issues of punishment, recidivism, inequality, rehabilitation, etc, is a problem for the politicians.

I think a defendants chances are better if they have resources, allies, etc...
This is true for most western countries. Amanda's fame also helped Guede because Biscotti would only have taken his case pro bono if it was high profile.

"Police are only interested in securing a conviction."

Well, they failed, didn't they? Police learn to work the system which leads to official corruption. That is what happened in this case.

 

[Mr Fied]

Are you confirming Raff and Amanda "bought" their way out?
Police are only interested in securing a conviction.

The wider issues of punishment, recidivism, inequality, rehabilitation, etc, is a problem for the politicians.

First highlight. It was being pointed out that they were lucky enough to be able to mount a decent defence. Although I don't think their defence teams did a great job, it was more to do with the fact that the prosecution case was finally seen for what it was.

Second highlight. Police should only be interested in collecting evidence. It is the prosecutors job to try and secure a conviction if the evidence is strong enough.
Perhaps if the police and scientific team in this case had done their jobs correctly the case would have been wrapped up sooner and the Kercher family could have been spared some of their torment.

 

[andreajo]

No, you have to look at the whole picture. The detectives good at this rise through the ranks.

This is a good point. The techniques used in this case were learned over many years and resulted in a high rate of conviction. If Amanda and Raffaele had been nobodies with no families or resources they most likely would never have been acquitted and this case would have been remembered as a big success for the police. Who knows how many innocents have been convicted in Italy without anyone caring very much. BTW, this goes double in the US where getting a new trial is much more difficult.

Are you confirming Raff and Amanda "bought" their way out?

Police are only interested in securing a conviction.

The wider issues of punishment, recidivism, inequality, rehabilitation, etc, is a problem for the politicians.

What do you mean by "bought" their way out? Do you mean could they afford good lawyers and experts? Do you mean did they bribe officials? Please be specific.

How do you think that zotz could confirm this? Do you think that zotz has some inside information? How would we know if zotz really did have certain information? He/she is, after all, an anonymous poster on the case.

If you believe that "police are only interested in securing a conviction", do you think that they might cut corners to secure a conviction? If they did cut corners to secure a conviction, would this worry you?

 

[Grinder]

What behaviors would have been suspicious if the burglary had been staged and the kids were involved in the murder?

What additional suspicious behaviors could they have committed if they were guilty?

The amandaknoxcase.com site has a list of many of the interviews and a special section on the british girls. They interviewed a lot of people all the way to the 5th.

What other information about the calling in of Raf (not Amanda) besides her book and the puffery of Giobbi is available?

 

[Bill Williams]

All good questions:

What behaviors would have been suspicious if the burglary had been staged and the kids were involved in the murder?

Acc. to John Follain, when this was pointed out to them by Postal Police Battistelli (before the horrid discovery), the suspicious behaviour was for neither Raffaele nor Amanda to say anything in reply.

What additional suspicious behaviors could they have committed if they were guilty?

By far, the most common behaviour a guilty party does is flee. Like Rudy did to Germany.

The amandaknoxcase.com site has a list of many of the interviews and a special section on the british girls. They interviewed a lot of people all the way to the 5th.

What other information about the calling in of Raf (not Amanda) besides her book and the puffery of Giobbi is available?

Name it, it's there.

 

[Dougm]

What behaviors would have been suspicious if the burglary had been staged and the kids were involved in the murder?

What additional suspicious behaviors could they have committed if they were guilty?

The amandaknoxcase.com site has a list of many of the interviews and a special section on the british girls. They interviewed a lot of people all the way to the 5th.

What other information about the calling in of Raf (not Amanda) besides her book and the puffery of Giobbi is available?

I realize this is an interesting topic, and has been debated over and over again, both here and elsewhere. But does it really matter if the cops called in Raf alone, or if it was both of them?

I don't really see how it affects what happened, and I think the cops could have taken either approach, and it doesn't change their intent that evening. The PG side his insisted that Amanda went of her own free will, and they want to use that as evidence there was no plan to coerce her in the interrogation. What we have here is two conflicting stories -- what Giobbi said (that he is sure he made the order for the two to be called together), and testimony of the other cops and Amanda and Raff, who say it was only Raf that was requested to come in. I tend to believe that it was Raff that was called, and Amanda went along (that matches the other facts that we know of). But even if the cops did not call Amanda in, they could have gone to get her anytime they wanted. In fact, if we want to drill down, it seems to me that having Raff come in by himself would have worked better to get them to "break". If they wanted Raff and Amanda to start telling different stories, it would work best if they were not thinking of the other one being in the building. If the goal is to separate them, separate them by more than just a few yards.

But either way, what was done is what was done. Amanda going into the police station willingly does not mean she volunteered for the treatment she got.

 

[sept79]

By all accounts, Amanda was happy and relaxed in prison. I read somewhere this is the standard response of a sociopath. They are equanimous with their surroundings. They are not known for their sensitivity.

Wow! What a revolting post!

 

[Planigale]

Police are suspicious, it is what they are trained to be. M16 the police intelligence arm in the UK relies on suspicions being reported.

I have often wondered whether the postal police really did turn up "quite by chance".

This is untrue.
i wonder that anyone is capable of posting so many factual errors as you do. It certainly implies you fail to fact check anything you post.

By MI6 I think you mean SIS. The foreign intelligence service (neighbours of mine in Vauxhall). https://www.sis.gov.uk/our-history/sis-or-mi6.html I suspect you intended to reference the Security Service (ex MI5). The security service is NOT the police intelligence service. The police intelligence service might be SB - special branch SO12 subsequently SO15 after merger with SO13, which works closely with the security service. It might be NCIS subsequently replaced by SOCA subsequently replaced by NCA - national crime agency. But never ever has it been SIS.

 

[Grinder]

I realize this is an interesting topic, and has been debated over and over again, both here and elsewhere. But does it really matter if the cops called in Raf alone, or if it was both of them?

No it doesn't and I didn't bring it up. I certainly would go after the PGP on their sites, if allowed, about their skewed bs about her going because she didn't want to leave Raf alone.

I really wish we had his earlier statements because I think he was spaced out and gave them mixed up dates and events as he did with the Mansey interview.

Giobbi also says the kids were in a pizzeria when they were at a friends house. The other cops were angry with her for being there. Giobbi puffed himself up with "the order" and his profiling skills.

But even if the cops did not call Amanda in, they could have gone to get her anytime they wanted. In fact, if we want to drill down, it seems to me that having Raff come in by himself would have worked better to get them to "break". If they wanted Raff and Amanda to start telling different stories, it would work best if they were not thinking of the other one being in the building. If the goal is to separate them, separate them by more than just a few yards.

They called in Raf and Amanda went along. There is nothing other than Giobbi's puff that says they had other plans. For all those that maintain the cops were framing them from day one to protect their informant or other IMO crazy ideas including choosing them because they were easy targets, they should look at the busy schedule of interviews they conducted from the very first day.

But either way, what was done is what was done. Amanda going into the police station willingly does not mean she volunteered for the treatment she got.

Once again, I agree. It is a mystery and a shame that Raf's dad's lawyer and his sister didn't make sure this didn't happen.

 

[Vixen]

First highlight. It was being pointed out that they were lucky enough to be able to mount a decent defence. Although I don't think their defence teams did a great job, it was more to do with the fact that the prosecution case was finally seen for what it was.

Second highlight. Police should only be interested in collecting evidence. It is the prosecutors job to try and secure a conviction if the evidence is strong enough.
Perhaps if the police and scientific team in this case had done their jobs correctly the case would have been wrapped up sooner and the Kercher family could have been spared some of their torment.

The police need to be able to justify bringing charges. That includes reconstructing what they believe happened and the evidence for it.

Hindsight is a fine thing.

Police are confronted with a crime scene. They set about solving the crime. "Solving" implies a riddle, a problem, an application of logic.

Police do this every day. IMV it is fatuous to seriously claim police having come across a brutal murder were only interested in "framing the American". Yet you are still vigorously arguing this unlikely proposition.

Police deal with low life, thieves, prostitutes, drugdealers. You are asking us to believe they victimised Amanda because she was the Ugly American abroad.

It is simply not credible.

 

[Vixen]

What do you mean by "bought" their way out? Do you mean could they afford good lawyers and experts? Do you mean did they bribe officials? Please be specific.

How do you think that zotz could confirm this? Do you think that zotz has some inside information? How would we know if zotz really did have certain information? He/she is, after all, an anonymous poster on the case.

If you believe that "police are only interested in securing a conviction", do you think that they might cut corners to secure a conviction? If they did cut corners to secure a conviction, would this worry you?

The beauty of justice at its best is that criminals cannot buy their way out.

In the UK, high profile figures like MP Mitchell (plebgate [he sued for libel, lost millions]), Nigella Lawson, Max Clifford, Rolf Harris, etc, etc, spent an absolute fortune trying to pay their way out.

If innocent, yes, of course you have a better chance with good counsel.

 

[Numbers]

An ECHR case relevant to the AK-RS case is KOVALCHUK v. UKRAINE 21958/05 04/11/2010

The relevance applies most directly to Amanda Knox's application to the ECHR claiming a violation of her Convention rights by Italy in that State convicting her of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba. In Kovalchuk v Ukraine, the ECHR judged there was a violation of Convention Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment) in both branches, substantive and procedural.

The most relevant part of the ECHR judgment is this statement from paragraph 60:

".... the apparent lack of procedural guarantees surrounding the applicant's interrogation, as he was questioned as a witness rather than as a suspect and in the absence of a lawyer. This, in conjunction with other irregularities surrounding the applicant's detention in custody, in particular, the two conflicting records of his arrest on 7 September 2002 and ambiguous evidence concerning the actual time of his detention in custody (see paragraphs 9, 10, 44 and 45 above), gives rise to a strong suspicion that regardless of whether the police resorted to physical violence, they used the applicant's arrest as a pretext to break his resistance in order to obtain self-incriminating statements."

More details are provided on the IIP Forum in the ECHR: Convention violations and Case-Law thread, and of course on HUDOC, the ECHR case data-base.

 

[Vixen]

This is untrue.
i wonder that anyone is capable of posting so many factual errors as you do. It certainly implies you fail to fact check anything you post.

By MI6 I think you mean SIS. The foreign intelligence service (neighbours of mine in Vauxhall). https://www.sis.gov.uk/our-history/sis-or-mi6.html I suspect you intended to reference the Security Service (ex MI5). The security service is NOT the police intelligence service. The police intelligence service might be SB - special branch SO12 subsequently SO15 after merger with SO13, which works closely with the security service. It might be NCIS subsequently replaced by SOCA subsequently replaced by NCA - national crime agency. But never ever has it been SIS.

I knew someone in MI6 so I just took his word for it. Clearly, there is more to this than I assumed. Thx for the clarification. I note your link states ppl commonly describe SIS as MI6, so it is not a factual error given language is based on consensus and you yourself knew what was meant.

 

[acbytesla]

What behaviors would have been suspicious if the burglary had been staged and the kids were involved in the murder?

What additional suspicious behaviors could they have committed if they were guilty?

The amandaknoxcase.com site has a list of many of the interviews and a special section on the british girls. They interviewed a lot of people all the way to the 5th.

What other information about the calling in of Raf (not Amanda) besides her book and the puffery of Giobbi is available?

What constitutes "suspicious behavior"Grinder? Was it the kiss that Raffaele and Amanda shared in the car park? Or the putting on the booties and yelling "tada"? Or was it having pizza or buying underwear? Amanda seems like a unique character but not a murderous psycho.

Seriously Grinder, Amanda and Raffaele stayed and answered all the police's questions. They didn't go to Gubbio or Germany I keep hearing that their behavior was suspicious. Personally I just think it was a little different.

Like the Japanese maxim, the nail that stands out must be hammered down.

You do this constantly. You come to a conclusion about this case and then you make it some indisputable truth. At one time, it was that Rudy had a date with Meredith. Then it was that Rudy wasn't really a burglar, now It's Giobbi making up stories to promote his own self importance.

I don't know for sure that you are wrong about any of this, but I also don't think we can say that you are right either .